On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Éric Araujo <merwok@netwok.org> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose the following PEP for discussion and, if possible, acceptance. I think the proposal shouldn't be too controversial (I find it quite simple and straightforward myself :-)). [snip PEP]
+1.
For nested functions, I too think that 'f.<locals>.g' has too many dots; I like '<local in f>.g' or '<f locals>.g'.
I like it too but don't think it's too many dots. The function from which the locals came _could_ be rolled into the brackets. However, in the context of some object (like the class X to which f belongs), 'X.f.<locals of f>.g' makes more sense in that case than 'X.<locals of f>.g', since the locals is related to f and not X. But, then the f is sort of redundant, so you go back to 'X.f.<locals>.g', and '<locals>' is still sort of unambiguous. The disconnect is that <locals> is an externally anonymous namespace resulting from a call, rather than bound to any external namespace (like an object). Perhaps it would be appropriate to use 'X.f().<locals>.g' to make that clear. -eric
polka-dots-ly yours _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas